**Introduction** National security is now a major, and increasingly dominant, driver of United States trade policy. US trade policy is no longer focused primarily on liberalization, comparative advantage, and economic efficiency. Tariffs, export controls, subsidies, investment restrictions, and industrial policy are increasingly used to reduce strategic dependence, protect technological leadership, and strengthen supply chain resilience, particularly in relation to China[1][2]. This reflects a broader shift in which trade policy has become more closely tied to geopolitical strategy and economic security objectives. **Contextual background** Recent geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions, and concerns over economic dependence have pushed US trade policy toward resilience, industrial capacity, and strategic autonomy[2][3]. These developments exposed the risks of concentrated production networks and reliance on foreign suppliers for strategically important goods. As a result, sectors once treated mainly as commercial industries, including semiconductors, clean energy, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing, are now viewed through a national security lens[1][2]. The shift also reflects a broader move toward geoeconomic policymaking, where trade, investment, technology, and industrial policy are integrated into geopolitical strategy[2]. **Why national security has become central** **1. Strategic rivalry with China is reshaping trade policy** US trade policy is increasingly organized around competition with China. Export controls on advanced semiconductors, investment restrictions, and efforts to restructure supply chains are intended to reduce strategic vulnerabilities and preserve US technological leadership[1]. Trade policy is therefore being used not only as an economic instrument, but also as a geopolitical one. This reflects the rise of techno-nationalism, where technology and industrial capacity are treated as sources of national power and security[1]. This approach differs from earlier trade policy frameworks that prioritized economic integration and efficiency gains. Current policy instead emphasizes reducing strategic dependence in sectors considered critical to military capability, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing[2]. **2. Economic resilience is increasingly treated as a security issue** Economic resilience refers to the ability of an economy to withstand external shocks and reduce vulnerabilities created by dependence on foreign suppliers[2]. In US trade policy, resilience is now treated as a national security objective, not only an economic concern. Dependence on foreign suppliers for semiconductors, batteries, pharmaceuticals, and other strategic goods is widely viewed as a vulnerability because disruptions could affect industrial production and defense readiness[2][3]. This has encouraged reshoring, domestic manufacturing support, and friend-shoring with politically aligned economies[2]. Industrial subsidies, procurement incentives, and local content requirements are therefore increasingly framed as measures to strengthen resilience and continuity of supply[2]. **3. The definition of national security has expanded** The growing importance of national security in US trade policy also reflects a broader definition of security. National security policy now extends to technology governance, cybersecurity, telecommunications infrastructure, public health resilience, and control over strategic resources[2][3]. Issues once treated mainly as commercial or regulatory matters are now framed as strategic vulnerabilities. Advanced semiconductors, artificial intelligence, 5G networks, and critical minerals are viewed not only as economic assets, but also as essential to military capability, digital security, and geopolitical influence[1][2]. This broader definition has widened the range of trade measures justified on national security grounds, contributing to greater use of export controls, investment restrictions, industrial subsidies, and strategic trade interventions globally[2][4]. **4. National security does not fully explain all US trade measures** Despite its growing importance, national security is not the sole driver of US trade policy. Many tariffs and trade restrictions also reflect domestic political pressures, trade deficit concerns, electoral incentives, and efforts to support domestic industries[3][4]. Some measures extend beyond sectors with clear security relevance, suggesting that protectionism and industrial competitiveness remain important policy objectives. Broad manufacturing tariffs, for example, are often intended to protect domestic producers and employment rather than address direct strategic vulnerabilities[3][4]. **Conclusion** National security has become one of the principal drivers of US trade policy, especially in sectors linked to technology, industrial capacity, and strategic supply chains. Strategic rivalry with China, concerns over resilience, and the widening definition of security have all contributed to a more interventionist approach to trade and industrial policy. However, national security does not fully replace traditional political and economic motivations. Contemporary US trade policy is better understood as a mix of security strategy, industrial policy, and domestic political economy pressures. The result is a trade policy agenda in which economic openness is increasingly weighed against strategic dependence, technological leadership, and national resilience.
